Cross classification AACR2 style is creeping back in here. Many things are both video and digital, specifically DVDs. The glossary definition of video even mentions the DVD player. Why are DVDs classed as digital when most video catalogers will be looking for them under video?
Solution and Reason: Prefer content over carrier whenever there is a conflict in the classification of carrier categories in Chapter 3.
Martha M. Yee, UCLA Film & Television Archive 5/10/2007

Video characteristics is an element that should be “Required if applicable” rather than “Optional.”. We would also like to see an example of how video characteristics would be textually recorded in ISBD/MARC format in Appendix 1.
Kincy/MLA Liaison on behalf of NLM 5/16/07

3.19.0 Basic instructions on recording video characteristics

[QUESTION] Why is video characteristics an optional element. “Video format”, in particular, should never be optional, since this information is essential to the identification and selection of videos. Patrons may not understand what “video disc” means and it would help them tremendously if we required “DVD” to be included in the video characteristics. Some could be optional (as some are not always easily ascertained), while others should be required. de Groat for OLAC, 5/16/07

Agree. Glennan 5/30/07

3.19.0.1 Scope

EXAMPLE: Give examples for recording aspect ratio, and for when a video is in “widescreen” or letterboxed format. This is extremely important to the identification and selection of videos, and catalogers may be less likely to leave it out of records if they see an actual example in RDA. de Groat for OLAC, 5/16/07

3.19.0.1.1

3.19.0.1.2

3.19.0.1.3

3.19.0.1.4

3.19.0.1.5

3.19.0.2 Sources of information

3.19.0.2.1

3.19.0.3 Recording video characteristics

[QUESTION] “Video format” and “broadcast standard” are “elements’ presented separately from “Notes on video characteristics”. Were they intended to be included as part of the physical description in records rather than notes? This should be part of the physical description, rather than in the notes, and we hope the MARC format gets revised to allow this. de Groat for OLAC, 5/16/07

3.19.0.3.1

3.19.0.3.3

3.19.0.3.3

3.19.0.4 Video format

[CLARITY] Where would various flavors of DVD video like DVD-R, +R, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray be presented? Are these encoding formats? We note that “DVD” is missing from the list for “video format.” “DVD” is such a common format, that there is no reason why it should not be included in this list, where people will look for it. If it needs to stay in 3.20.0.5, there need to be some x-refs here (e.g. for digital video formats, see digital encoding formats). An indication of the relation of digital formats to the formats listed would be helpful in the formats list. For example, Digital Betacam should be listed either as a subset of Betacam, or as a separate format. What should we do with recorded DVDs where the exact format (DVD-R or +R) is not known? Some, especially older DVD players play only pressed discs, and some play DVD-R or +R but not both. de Groat for OLAC, 5/16/07

3.19.0.4.1

[CLARITY] What context would require "8 mm"? Such a resource would have "8 mm" recorded in extent already, yes? (3.5.0.4.1i.3) Scharff, MusLA, 5/21/07

3.19.0.4.2

3.19.0.4.3

3.19.0.5 Broadcast standard

Broadcast standard is an element that should be “Required if applicable” rather than “Optional.” There is no mention in this instruction about color so we do not understand the reference to this rule from 3.12.1.3.2. Kincy/MLA Liaison on behalf of NLM 5/16/07

3.19.0.5.1

3.19.0.5.2

3.19.1 Notes on video characteristics

3.19.1.1 Scope

3.19.1.1.1

3.19.1.2 Sources of information

3.19.1.2.1

3.19.1.3 Details of video characteristics

3.19.1.3.1

3.19.1.3.2

[MAJOR ISSUE] Region coding is crucial for selection! (Though it is not always ascertainable so can’t be required, but should be required when known). This should be an element rather than a note. de Groat for OLAC, 5/16/07